More misleading CMI claims (Sorensen repeating them)

[a_haworthroberts]

I sent the following email:

YEC really scraping the barrel with an old (and completely discredited) article.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/09 ... earth.html
"The salt content of the oceans, even using the assumptions and methods of secular scientists, yield upper age limits that are still far below what they want to see. The old, salty Lake Eyre is one of these, and makes scientists wonder where the salt has gone. Not really that difficult, really. Earth was created recently, but those owlhoots deny the truth."

Sorensen references this:
https://creation.com/worlds-oldest-salt ... -years-old
"Evolutionists date the Tertiary between two and 65 million years ago. Even if Lake Eyre formed two million years ago, and we assume floods every eight years, 99.4 per cent of the expected salt is missing. If we assume it is older, and take into account the wetter climate of the past, the problem becomes even greater, with up to 99.99 per cent of the expected salt missing."

Which was referenced and repeated here (number 27):
https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
"The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth."

Which was debunked here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evide ... niverse#27
"The author of the linked article has misread the paper[41] he references — it estimates the content of salt in the catchment of the lake (the entire land area which drains into the lake), not in the lake itself...".

This indeed being the paper referenced in that 1995 CMI article and then repeated, implicitly and highly misleadingly, by Don Batten in 2009:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR9840119

Yet the CMI 1995 article - which the fraud Sorensen is encouraging people to read - made the claim: "In 1984, scientists measured the amount of salt accumulated in Australia’s largest salt lake—Lake Eyre in South Australia...". No. They estimated the store of soluble salts in the Lake Eyre CATCHMENT.

Anyway. WHAT has the age of Australia's Lake Eyre (almost certainly more than 6,000 or 4,500 years old) got to do with the age of planet Earth?

Real scientists still believe the Lake Eyre basin began to be formed in the Paleogene/Tertiary around 60 million years ago.

So who is really 'torturing' evidence to make Earth the age they WANT it to be and persuade people as to whether this lake is much more than 4,500 years old or must post-date a 'worldwide flood' 4,500 years ago?

[a_haworthroberts]

I received an email from one of the recipients of my email about Lake Eyre (a YEC as it happens but not one who obviously lies).

I replied as follows, copied to all original recipients as well (I've corrected one minor typo):

"Having checked online, the world's oldest lake is thought to be Lake Baikal in Russia. But maybe Lake Eyre is still considered the oldest salt lake.

You mention CMI having removed a reference to the 'world's oldest lake'; whilst that 1995 article correctly (I think) referred to the 'world's oldest salt lake' having looked more closely I see that (although he has not responded to my email for which he was a bcc recipient) Don Batten or possibly one of his colleagues has slightly amended his 2009 article - on 13 September 2017 (there are still 101 'evidences' in his list as previously and number 27 is now to do with unreferenced claims about the Arches National Park in the USA and material concerning the 'twelve apostle' sea stacks in Australia) - with the previous evidence 27 concerning Lake Eyre having been REMOVED. (I cannot recall whether Batten referred correctly to the 'world's oldest salt lake' or incorrectly to the 'world's oldest lake' though the RationalWiki link I posted implies it may have been the latter; it quoted evidence 27 as follows: "the amount of salt in the world's oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah's Flood, which is consistent with a young age of the earth".

This is interesting and I am thus copying this exchange to all of the original cc and bcc recipients because some of them might only view my original email AFTER the Batten article was altered - and be confused. (The amendment of 13 Sept is welcome, but why have CMI not been UPFRONT via email rather than 'secretive' about the Batten list being amended yesterday?)

Bottom line - without any specific announcement CMI have just withdrawn a misleading claim from a list on their website.

I've only been able to view the abstract of this btw:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/sr/SR9840119"


(Duplicate post: I should probably have posted this here rather than in the Sorensen thread.)